1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JAMES E. LUNDEEN, Sr., M.D., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:11-CV-484 

 Magistrate Judge King 

LANCE A. TALMADGE, M.D., et al., 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On January 28, 2016, this Court denied plaintiff’s Motion for an 

Order in Equity pursuant to the Savings Clause of Rule 60 Setting 

Aside the Final Order of the State Medical Board of Ohio in Action 11-

CRF-055 and Declaring Said Order Fraudulant [sic] and Void, ECF No. 58 

(“Plaintiff’s Rule 60(d) Motion”). Opinion and Order, ECF No. 62. This 

matter is now before the Court, with the consent of the parties 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), on plaintiff’s motion to reconsider 

that denial. Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 63. 

This action arose out of the May 11, 2011 summary suspension of 

plaintiff from the practice of medicine and surgery by the State 

Medical Board of Ohio. The Court dismissed the action on November 11, 

2011, reasoning that (1) abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 

37 (1971), was appropriate with respect to plaintiff’s claims for 

injunctive relief against defendants in their official capacity, (2) 

defendants were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity in 

connection with plaintiff’s federal claims for monetary damages 

against them in their personal capacity and (3) defendants were immune 

Case: 2:11-cv-00484-NMK Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

under O.R.C. § 9.86 from liability for monetary damages under state 

law. Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 42. This Court’s judgment was 

affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 

Lundeen v. Talmadge, Case No. 12-3250 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2012).1

 

Plaintiff’s Rule 60(d) Motion, filed on August 31, 2015, 

addressed – not the summary suspension originally at issue in this 

case – but the December 2011 permanent revocation of plaintiff’s 

certificate to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Ohio.2

Specifically, plaintiff argued that the lawyers who had represented 

him in the state medical board administrative hearing that ultimately 

culminated in that permanent revocation had not acted on his behalf. 

Plaintiff’s Rule 60(d) Motion asked that this Court “issue an ORDER 

setting aside and declaring the underlying December 14, 2011, order of 

[the Board] in its action 11-CRF-055 fraudulent and void, thus 

preventing the [Board] from deriving any benefit of said order.” Id. 

at PAGEID# 3562 (emphasis in original). 

 This Court denied Plaintiff’s Rule 60(d) Motion on January 28, 

2016, concluding that plaintiff had not presented evidence of such “a 

grave miscarriage of justice” or an instance of such “unusual and 

exceptional circumstances” as to warrant the extraordinary relief 

 1 On January 15, 2014, plaintiff moved to set aside that judgment 

pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Motion to Set 

Aside Judgment and Re-Open Proceedings pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 

60(b)(5), ECF No. 52, and to amend the complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to File Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support, ECF No. 53. 

This Court denied those motions. Opinion and Order, ECF No. 56. 2 The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the permanent 

revocation, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment, 

Lundeen v. State Med. Bd. Of Ohio, 2013 WL 209136 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. Jan. 

17, 2013) and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept plaintiff’s appeal, 

Lundeen v. State Med. Bd. Of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 1405 (2013). 

Case: 2:11-cv-00484-NMK Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

sought by him. Opinion and Order, PAGEID# 4412, ECF No. 62 (citing 

United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998); Marcelli v. Walker, 

313 F.App’x 839, 842 (6th Cir. 2009)). 

 Even assuming that plaintiff’s February 29, 2016 Motion for 

Reconsideration is timely, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to 

alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after 

the entry of the judgment”), the Court nevertheless concludes that the 

motion is without merit. 

 The Motion for Reconsideration addresses the date on which 

plaintiff first had contact with his attorney. See Declaration of 

James E. Lundeen, Jr., MD, PAGEID# 4429, ECF No. 63. However, this 

issue was not determinative to the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Rule 

60(d) Motion and does not warrant reconsideration of that denial. 

 Plaintiff also insists, again, that a WORD document and 

associated metadata “constitute the ‘smoking gun’” that confirms the 

“treachery” of his counsel. Motion for Reconsideration, PAGEID# 4417. 

However, this Court remains convinced that “Defendants’ suggested 

interpretation of [this evidence] . . . is at least as plausible as 

plaintiff’s interpretation of this exhibit.” Opinion and Order, 

PAGEID# 4411, ECF No. 62. 

 In the Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff’s Rule 60(d) Motion,

the Court also referred, in passing, to a motion for relief from the 

state court judgments pursuant to Rule 60(B) of the Ohio Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Opinion and Order, PAGEID# 4411-12, ECF No. 62. 

Plaintiff argues that, under Ohio law, motions for relief from 

judgment are not applicable to administrative appeals. Motion for 

Case: 2:11-cv-00484-NMK Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

Reconsideration, PAGEID# 4417-18. Regardless, the Court remains 

convinced that plaintiff has not established such egregious misconduct 

in connection with the state administrative hearing as to warrant the 

extraordinary relief contemplated by Rule 60(d) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. 

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 63, is therefore 

DENIED. 

March 29, 2016 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00484-NMK Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>